SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

gains in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act ? " Page 13 of 66 10.5The Hon'ble Court after considering the averments of both parties and the orders of the authorities below held as under : • "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal followed an earlier

CHINNAPPA ANTHONAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

section (1) i.e., within a period of two year after the date of transfer of capital asset which gives rise to capital gain, then the amount not so utilised shall be charged u/s. 45 as income of the previous year in which period of two years from the date of transfer of the original asset expires. In that case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. RAMESH NARAYANA REDDY (HUF), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavdcit, Circle - 4(1)(1) Ramesh Narayana Reddy (Huf) Room No. 230, 2Nd Floor #62, Sonnenahalli Bmtc Building, Koramangala Vs. Mahadevapura Bangalore 560095 Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aamhr4231A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061428431(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Aggrieved With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Revenue Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us & Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Ld. Addl. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,18,01,752 As Deemed Rental Income On The Ground That There Was No Addition Made In The Case Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Same Property For The Same Assessment Year. The Nfac Has Not Considered That The Assessments Of Three Different Co-Owners Were Completed In Faceless Manner. There Is No Algorithm For Allocation Of Cases Of Three Different Assessees Having Common Interest In A Single Property To A Single Assessing Officer For Assessment. Hence, Omission Of Addition In Cases Of Other Two Co-Owners Of The Property Wherein Assesses Is An Owner May Be Because

75,90,404/-, the AO computed the short term capital gain of Rs. 29,76,76,017/-.” 7. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 the cases of the assessee were assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and the department treated the gain under similar facts as long term capital gain. Therefore

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

gains in view of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 48 of the Act ? " 10.5The Hon'ble Court after considering the averments of both parties and the orders of the authorities below held as under :• "5. We find from the record that the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal followed an earlier ruling of the Tribunal

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K

75,460. The 2 Sri.K S Hanumantha Rao. return was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 04.03.2016. Subsequently, notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act was issued by the CIT. According to the CIT, the assessment order completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 04.03.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

capital gains account scheme. The authorities below alleges that, sum of Rs.65 Lacs invested in construction of residential property cannot be allowed to assessee, since property could not be constructed within period of 3 years. There is no finding by authorities below that, delay in construction was attributable to assessee but was beyond the control of assessee since the construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. R. MUNIRAJU (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The conditions specified in the said case law and their satisfaction in the present case are tabulated below: S. Conditions Satisfaction of the Conditions No. 1 Yes. The JDA dated 11.12.2009 is the contract which specifies that the There should be a contract landowner is entitled to 40% of the super

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

capital loss on sale of shares as claimed by the Assessee and hold that the transaction of sale of shares deserves to be ignored and no loss can be determined nor can any short term gain be taxed. Thus the grounds relating to short term loss/gain on sale of shares are treated as partly allowed. 54. Ground No.23

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC. SL No. AY Agri Land Holding Income earned 1,75,000/- 1 2006-07 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,50,000/- 2 2007-08 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,75

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC. SL No. AY Agri Land Holding Income earned 1,75,000/- 1 2006-07 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,50,000/- 2 2007-08 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,75

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC. SL No. AY Agri Land Holding Income earned 1,75,000/- 1 2006-07 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,50,000/- 2 2007-08 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,75

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC. SL No. AY Agri Land Holding Income earned 1,75,000/- 1 2006-07 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,50,000/- 2 2007-08 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,75

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC. SL No. AY Agri Land Holding Income earned 1,75,000/- 1 2006-07 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,50,000/- 2 2007-08 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,75

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details of RTC. SL No. AY Agri Land Holding Income earned 1,75,000/- 1 2006-07 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,50,000/- 2 2007-08 30 Acres 3 Guntas 1,75

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 50 gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s.Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 2,37,75,098/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 50 gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s.Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 2,37,75,098/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

capital ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 50 gains declared by the assessee from transfer of shares of M/s.Parag Shilpa Investment Ltd (PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd) of Rs. 2,37,75,098/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 20. That the authorities below erred in resorting to section